A friend of mine, we'll call him Jeremiah Wontsay, recently brought forth his distaste for Boxing with a great comparison to MMA.
"This is exactly why mma [is greater than] boxing: because the top fighters actually WANT to fight each other. The only reason that Mayweather won't fight Pac is because he does notthat he will win the fight. I'm not saying that he couldn't, just that it isn't certain. The boxers at the top don't feel like testing themselves, they want the sure win to preserve their legacy. MMA fights are usually charged because both combatants know that they are going to war, but they don't know who will come out on top. They want to see for themselves, and the only way to find out who is better is to see who wins in a fight."
What a great synopsis of the difference between boxing's fading star and MMA's rise. Then as I was doing my internet reading and generally thinking about College Football, it dawned on me that this is eerily similar to what is happening with the BCS vs. Playoff debate now.
The BCS is to a Playoff as Boxing is to MMA.
Doesn't the regime in charge of the BCS sound just like that of Boxing? They are trying to hold on to power by creating a false front. Don't many "Top" college programs regularly schedule very easy games against obviously inferior opponents so they can be sure to win? Admittedly they are only doing it because the BCS forces them to do whatever they can to arrive at the end of their regular season with an undefeated record. How they get there doesn't really seem to matter to the powers that be and help decide the combatants in the National Championship game. Which is basically impossible to get to with even a single loss on a teams record.
If we look at the other side of this, the MMA side if you will, we will find people interested in honestly testing their might to determine who is the best. This is the side where two men or two teams face each other and fight as hard and as best they can to win. There is a theory out there that says you can only get better by challenging yourself against the best and this is the side of the argument that it would come under. Teams can play against one another in an open quest to determine who is better and knowing that they can possibly become a better team in a hard fought loss than they can in a dominant win.
What if every team in college football tried to schedule games against the very best teams each week, then after that, there was a ranking of teams 1 through 16 and a playoff based on those rankings? Well that sounds like we would arrive at a much more realistic National Champion than we currently do with the BCS.